Trump: I Cannot Be Criminally Investigated While In Office

In another extreme and dubious argument in court, President Donald Trump has gone to court against to block Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance from gaining access to his tax returns. The President’s resistance to disclosing his taxes is now legendary, including differing excuses. However, this 20-page filing contains a particularly disconcerting argument that Trump cannot be criminally investigated while he is in office. It is an argument that has little support in either the text of the Constitution or cases dealing with Article II.

Trump claims in the filing that a sitting president cannot be arrested, imprisoned, detained, “investigated, indicted, or otherwise subjected to the criminal process.”

The argument relies on an Office of Legal Counsel legal memo that I have previously criticized as poorly reasoned and supported. The OLC has a long history of expansive interpretations of executive powers and privileges. While admitting that the issue is far from settled, the OLC argued that a sitting president should not be criminally indicted. I have long maintained that the memo is fundamentally wrong on the Constitution and the intent of the Framers. There is no bar on the prosecution of a sitting president and certainly no bar on the criminal investigation of a president.

There are times when a criminal prosecution may be the only practical answer for a criminal chief executive. In the case of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, years of alleged special dealing produced no impeachment. Only after he was charged in office did the Illinois legislature vote to remove him. But is a president inherently different from a governor? When he was solicitor general of the United States, Robert Bork wrote a brief saying that a vice president (like Spiro Agnew) could be indicted in office but not a sitting president. Leon Jaworski, the Watergate special prosecutor, disagreed and suggested that such an indictment might be possible. Recently released material related to the Clinton impeachment shows that the staff of independent counsel Kenneth Starr prepared a memo supporting the indictment of a president and drafted indictments for Bill Clinton.

The Justice Department itself concluded during the Clinton administration that “[n]either the text nor the history of the Constitution” is “dispositive” on this question but has rendered an internal opinion against indictments of a sitting president as a matter of “considerations of constitutional structure.” Mueller (who is supposed to follow the “rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies” of the Department) may consider himself bound to this guidance and put evidence of any crime in a report to Congress for possible impeachment.

326 thoughts on “Trump: I Cannot Be Criminally Investigated While In Office”

  1. We could probably add a few hundred more comments to the several hundred already made on this topic.
    That is evidently your idea of “ignoring'” my comments and buluding up frequent comment points for Dr. Allan Blowhard.
    No matter how many times and how many ways that it was explained to you, you took the position that the taking Richardson to a nearby hospital for imaging and stabilization was like “doing her nails”.
    When several direct quotes were provided for you that undermined your position, you accused those of providing direct quotes of “lying”.
    That was on top of your earlier game of labeling whatever you did not want to hear as “stupid” or “ignorant”.
    It takes an incredibly arrogant fool to pull that kind of crap, and you are actually right for once.
    I don’t like it, or the blowhards like you who think that s*** , or flooding the threads to get the first and last words in, is legitimate debate.

    1. “you took the position that the taking Richardson to a nearby hospital for imaging and stabilization was like “doing her nails”.”

      As stated numerous times it is nice to get a CAT Scan but it would have been nicer to get her to a facility that could do the procedure that could save her life. She could get the CAT Scan there without having the extra delay. Time was of the essence. I can’t help it if you can’t comprehend that fact.

      “When several direct quotes were provided for you that undermined your position, you accused those of providing direct quotes of “lying”.”

      The quotes didn’t undermine my position. The question asked of the good doctor was about Richardson’s delay and had nothing to do with the delay of almost 4 hours which is where I think the system failures occurred. That you kept lying about how it proved your position was a lie. Read the entire Scientific American article. I reproduced the question and the full answer from that journal onto this blog several times..

      “That was on top of your earlier game of labeling whatever you did not want to hear as “stupid” or “ignorant”.”

      I don’t care when someone makes an error or there is a true difference of opinion but when someone errs while getting nasty and lying then they are most definitely stupid. You fit that description perfectly.

      All these questions were answered multiple times in multiple posts some nice and some nasty. You have a very fragile ego so you have made yourself look like a fool. I even used your own citations against you because you only read enough to find a quote, not to understand.

      1. It is more than ” nice to get a CAT Scan” before drilling holes into someone’s skull.
        This also has been covered, as “lack of imaging” was one of the contraindications listed to drilling blind into a patient’s skull.
        No matter how many times or how many ways things are explained to Dr. Alan “I am right regardless of the facts” Blowhard, he will stick to his idiotic guns.
        Kudos again to Alan for following though on his tactic of “ignoring” my comments (by responding to them, and having to get in the first and last word).
        Maybe you and the other Giant Brain, Jethro, should be given that privilege, since you are both “special” cases.

        1. “It is more than ” nice to get a CAT Scan” before drilling holes into someone’s skull.
          This also has been covered, as “lack of imaging” was one of the contraindications listed to drilling blind into a patient’s skull.”

          It is nice to have as much information as possible. It is also nice to have the most experienced team at the best hospital with the best nurses. However, medical personal frequently have to act where the conditions are not the best they possibly can be. Spending the time travelling to an alternate facility to do a CAT Scan where they can’t do the life saving procedure (the patient was deteriorating and proof of that fact was by the time she arrived in she was brain dead) sounds ridiculous if time is of the essence. The only thing that facility has to offer is a potential diagnosis but they cannot save a life. A better plan is to go where the life saving procedure can be done along with a CAT Scan if time permits.

          You sound like you have been coddled all your life and I broke your bubble because I said it would be “nice”. Too bad. The coddling has made your brain soft. Sometimes people have to do what they have to do without covering every base.

          I can’t figure out how this ignores what you are saying. You can’t either or you would be able to put it into words that are meaningful.

          1. Rather than continuing to explain the meaning of words, like “ignore” or “contraindication”, it would be better if Alan the Blowhard went out and spent a few bucks on a dictionary.

            1. Anonymous, it seems you have gone from me not knowing a thing about Richardson to not knowing what the word ignore means. Your parents should have ignored you on occasion to build the strength one needs to face the outside world. Their coddling left you limp like an invertebrate.

              1. You are the one who seems to not understand words like “ignore” or “contraindication”, Dr. Blowhard.
                I won’t bring up your parents, but maybe you got some of your medical “knowledge” in Barber College studying the teachings of Theodoric of York.
                Becoming an idiotic
                and prolifiic blowhard was probably a skill you refined over the years, and you should thank your lucky stars for the internet to display that skill as a most frequent commentator.

                1. ““knowledge” in Barber College”

                  Now you are insulting barbers. Look at the barber pole and take a history lesson of medieval times. Take note of the surgery barbers did.

                  Take note that this like other postings of yours is just one big insult without anything of importance written but while doing so you continuously expose your broadbased ignorance.

                  1. Allan continues to make his mark in the world by writing blog comments.

                    He wants you to remember this:

                    You, too, can save a life by drilling a hole in someone’s head. There may be a little ‘damage to the brain’, but no matter. A life with brain damage and disability is so much better than no life at all.

                    1. It strikes me that anonymous has had personal experience with too many holes not just drilled into but through his head. They thought he was a just a dummy so they used his head for practice. They were right .

                  2. I was not insulting barbers. I was actually complementing Dr. Allan Blowhard on his vast, Theodoric of York- like medical expertise.

                    1. You and Fido can search the internet for retorts. I’ll just repeat what was previously stated to prove my case. Being nice to a rabid dog and its master doesn’t work.

                      “There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues”

                      If you like the term guidelines that is fine. It is a good term but guidelines coexist with systems that are in place. Systems aren’t necessarily created by medical professionals and even medical guidelines can be altered by non professionals.

                      “Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion.”

                      Yes, she suffered a concussion but did she also suffer a bleed?

                      “The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”? I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.”

                      That is what I call a system failure. The bleed is the real emergency whereas the concussion would be of much less urgency and more run of the mill. Did they know she wasn’t a routine problem? Should critical conditions be handled like routine problems? (I don’t think so.) We have to guess that they recognized this patient was more critical than the vast majority of patients they treat based on a troublesome Glasgow score, a deteriorating mental status, and ‘talk and die’. Did the system appropriately account for the most serious conditions? That is the issue under discussion.

                      A bleed should always be in the back of the minds of medical professionals that recognize the urgency. You seem to believe that the only facility that could relieve the pressure of a bleed is a trauma center. That would mean that Canada had no closer facilities that could both do a CT and a burr hole and then transfer the patient to the trauma hospital buying the patient’s life a little extra time. Have you checked the possible facilities in that area? A closer facility to just drill the burr hole decreases the delay for that type of patient.

                      This problem is not as uncommon as you believe. You should have recognized that when you posted the article on burr holes. They were discussing doing burr holes on the site so the patient wouldn’t die on the way to the hospital or the trauma hospital.

                      Since they didn’t seem to have a system to separate the sickest from the rest I wonder if the system was created based solely on the odds. That is not the way medicine should be practiced. I think their system has already been changed to account for this type of system problem. I think they now use helicopters and that helps correct the failure I have been talking about.

                      This posting of yours seems like an attempt to address the systems involved. It is the best effort to date by you but I think you drew a conclusion and then looked for things that satisfied the conclusion instead of maintaining an open mind drawing conclusions after you had more information.

                      We have to recognize that Canada has a centralized system of medical care and that can lead to certain holes in treatment. The specific hole that occurred here might not occur in a more decentralized medical system. There are advantages and disadvantages and they have to do with the risks and benefits.

                      The risk is loss of life the benefits have to do with preserving resources. Where on the line one places their emphasis is a societal decision.

  2. Allan the Brave,
    I don’t think that is the definition of “anonymous”.
    I did post the definition of “ignore”, since you do not seem to grasp its meaning.
    Must be difficult if not impossible to “ignore” when you always have to have the first and last word in an exchange.

      1. Is that your “last word”, Blowhard? Or are you going to continue to “ignore” my comments?

        1. What comments of substance have you made that I haven’t answered? You are schizo. You complain that I respond to every post and then you complain that I don’t. Someone should put a muzzle on you.

          1. Virtually all of them, Blowhard. Since you have repeatedly skipped over comments and challenges to your “multiple delays” claim, I’m not about to repeat them again for you.
            You have just kept mindlessly squawking “”4 hour delay” or ” nearly 4 hour delay” as an automatic response to evidence showing that was not true.
            Now go ahead and change the subject again from your “ignoring” me and from you needing to get in the first and last word.
            That is the comment you were supposedly replying to, you dimwit.

            1. “Virtually all of them”

              I copied your responses in quotes and answered them. You don’t like the answers. You don’t like the fact that I believe the almost 4 hour delay indicates a system failure. You don’t like the fact that if in the end one has the choice of saving a life or doing a CAT Scan one should choose saving a life. You don’t like the idea of thinking. That is your major problem.

              Go ahead and list any things I left out. I would love to answer them now but I don’t think they exist or you didn’t read the reply. But we already know your intentions. ” I’m not about to repeat them again for you.”

              That is because you are a faker, a phony and all the other things that come with these words. This is demonstrated by your actions and your choice of alias, anonoymous. Worst of all you have no shame about lying.

      2. “Fido get your rabies shots.”

        Says the mangy old cur named “Allan” — the only dog around here.

  3. Completely off-topic but UCLA is doing much better than expected against the Cougars on their home field.

    1. U/W almost always seems to “do better than expected” against the WSU Cougars on any field, Benson.
      How long have you been at WSU, and do you remember that bygone era when WSU actually won in the Apple Bowl Game?

        1. David, that is a wise decision. In that way you ignore Dr. Death and who wants to be around him and you ignore that nasty dog Fido that keeps yapping at Dr. Deaths heals. Is Fido, the lonely brainless wonder, becoming a necrophiliac?

          1. Just keep racking up those frequent commentator points by “ignoring” me, Dr. Blowhard.

        2. David I believe you were correct when you said “I ignore anything from anonymous entities.”. Just look at the response from our anonymous poster below, “Just keep racking up those frequent commentator points by “ignoring” me” He wants to be noticed and not ignored. That is why he is racking up posts. One would think that as stupid as he is he would want to hide.

          David, you hit the nail on the head.

            1. It sounds like you are now insulting David Benson.

              His comment and proposed action were intelligent.”I ignore anything from anonymous entities.”.

              Keep lying anonymous and keep insulting people. You are a loser.

              1. Alan has an odd notion of what “ignoring” people means.
                David Benson has probably earned his share of insults here.
                And Alan is earning his. That comes with the territory when you make baseless accusations, then call others “ignorant, stupid, liars” etc. when those baseless accusations are challenged.
                Alan has not figured that out. Doubtful that he ever will.

                1. But anonymous, you are ignorant and what David said about the cowards that go under that generic alias is true. You have proven the lack of worth of anyone posting under that generic name.

                  You complain about the number of postings not much different from Fido’s complaints and like Fido you push even more responses. Such similarities.

                  You have been wrong on the Richardson case altering what you say as time has gone on and you could see how silly some of your earlier statements were.

                  You are a loser.

                    1. In your case the word anonymous means a person who doesn’t want to take responsibility for what they say. They feel hiding among others distributes such responsibility. They are frequently known as cowards.

      1. Anonymous – it will be tough figuring out the defensive lineman of of the game.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – at least I am not the Queen of Hearts. 😉

  4. I don’t attempt to read replys* which are set one letter per line. So I can just ignore the plea by PCS for devine intervention.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – invest in a tablet or use your home computer. STOP USING YOUR PHONE.

  5. OT:

    Someone needs to explain why the U.S. Constitution applies in its entirety to Palmyra Atoll in the middle of the pacific ocean, a population of ~ 0 (jk, whoever is there for the Nature Conservancy); and only applies in part to Puerto Rico, a population ~ 3 million.

    Just a thought…

    1. Wally World,
      If you are very patient, I’m sure that “federalist papers” will explain it.😉

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – how many can you do?

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – we clearly need video evidence of this. Since it is silly I am not adding to the list.

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. I wouldn’t need the list if you would cite your sources.

              1. My source is devine revelation as as such is privileged.

                Go find your own librarian, oh little mind of no understanding.

                1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-seven citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – “devine revelation”? I thought Andy was dead,

  6. A few thoughts on one of the Founders who some of you seem to revere as Gods. I could make a better case for Jay who did better, freeing his slaves when he felt they were old enough and had provided enough retribution.
    “”I purchase slaves and manumit them at proper ages and when their faithful services shall have afforded a reasonable retribution.”
    For Jefferson, I offer no allowances.

      1. Napoleon dumped the territory of Louisiana after the successful slave revolt in Saint Domingue (Haiti) and determined he’d had enough of those disrespectful slaves who were ever present in France’s American holdings. Jefferson was happy it because it added to the market for slaves he was personally breeding in Virginia. His conflicts of interest were even greater than Trump’s.

            1. I had learned that he wanted small farmers to be able to acquire their own land. Whatever, he knew a bargain when it was presented to him.

              1. He knew it provided a bigger market to Virginia slaveholders which he helped raise the price of using protectionist measures. I’m still trying to pin down sending the Marines to the Barbary Coast and it’s relationship to slavery but no one actually talks about the actual trading he was trying to protect (I’ve seen a report claiming salt but I’m still digging). America has done much to rewrite its history and the motivations of its precious founders. They built this country on the literal backs of slaves, indentured servants, the Chinese, and the poor. Making themselves rich and taking credit for their altruism.

              2. PS God forbid any of Paul’s relatives are ever captured by hostile forces, but if so, he is prepared to accept whatever is done to them as legal.

                1. Anon1 – my brother has already been hung twice and I expect, if captured, to be first against the wall.

            2. In the advancement of human liberty Jefferson was of great importance to all.

              Yes, America and many Americans had slaves. Slavery was worldwide and historically not limited to blacks. Change occured slowly but the English people were the quickest to outlaw slavery and in the US that came at a big price in 1865 with the sacrifice of so many men black and white. That didn’t end slavery in the rest of the world but it showed America was willing to lead the way and it has. Black Africa still has slaves and new types of slavery have popped up in the modern world.

              Was slavery in this nation bad? Yes and the price paid was very heavy, but it was paid. No one today in this country was ever a legal slave. We have advanced for the better but some would like to pull us back instead of looking forward and that is not a good thing for the people or the nation..

          1. You must have misread the article you provided, supplied by his family by the way telling us how good and kind he was to the slaves. What’s the best way you can interpret, “He sold more than 110 in his lifetime, mainly for financial reasons?”

            1. He sold them in Virginia, not “down the river”. So the Louisiana purchase had no part of it.

              1. The vast majority of slaves sold in Virginia were sent South to plantations. They either walked in “coffles”, were sent by rail, or ships. Virginia had excess slaves (as did Maryland. Whether or not Jeffersons slaves went to Louisiana or not is immaterial as he increased the value of Domestic slaves by increasing the demand.

                While you may desire for this conversation to go a certain way. You really don’t know enough history (or economics) to be a participant.


                1. enigma – since this is a legal blog, let’s look at this both legally and pragmatically. Legally, Jefferson could buy, own and sell slaves all of which he did. He even manumitted slaves on his death. Pragmatically, when you are in Virginia, there is not much of a market north of you for slaves, so you have to “sell down river.” England will not abolish slavery until 1833. Spain will not abolish slavery until 1873. At the cost of 500k lives, the United States abolished it in 1865.

                  1. He manumitted five slaves upon his death including the one he started raping at 14. That left hundreds he did not. He abolished the International slave trade in 1808, not to end slavery but to prop up the prices of domestic slaves, particularly in Virginia and Maryland at the expense of South Carolina which was the primary US port receiving African slaves which they both used for their sugar and rice plantations and shipped South. The whole move was to screw South Carolina and benefit mainly Virginia slaveowners of which he may have been the primary beneficiary.
                    I’m glad you aren’t saying the war was about states rights. It was about slavery. The North’s concern wasn’t so much about freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was about hurting the South’s economy and keeping Britain and France from joining the South against them.

                    1. enigma – the first child is not a Jefferson, and the rest are have Jefferson DNA. However, Randolph is probably more culpable than he is.

                    2. enigma – the Thomas Jefferson family is very sweet and generous. However, this late in the game, all we know for sure is that the first child of Sally was not fathered by a Jefferson and the rest were. Which Jefferson is a coin toss. However, my money is on Randolf.

                    3. enigma – my friend, this is from near the bottom of the article you cited.

                      Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson’s life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson’s younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings’s children.

                    4. Part of their stated purpose. “To stand always in opposition to those who would seek to undermine the integrity of Thomas Jefferson.”

                      They do what they have to do to protect the integrity of a man who in some areas was quite challenged. When the current President was charged with havinx extra-marital affairs… he lied. Same as Clinton if that makes you feel bette. So does the Thomas Jefferson Historical Society. They cannot admit his failings as a man.

                    5. enigma – I think they are just damn nice people who did something they didn’t have to do. Jefferson was a widower, so it would not have been extra-marital. He was just having sex with the nanny, like Schwarzigner (sp?) and this is if we assume he did it. However, I think Randolph, who was on the plantation next door, did the dirty.

                    6. Do you think a 14-year-old that you own can freely give consent. That’s rape my friend. I understand the age meant less at the time but screwing someone that can’t say no is rape. Sally was closer than next door, she had a connecting room.

                    7. enigma – I do not agree with the system, however how do you know it was not consensual. I think the age of consent was 12 or something around then. Technically. she is chattel so it cannot be rape.

                      My contention is that neither of us can prove our cases. You have evidence for your side, I have evidence for my side. We are not going to change the opinion of the other. 😉

                    8. “Technically she is chattel so it cannot be rape.”

                      Only rapists would make a law like that. I suppose you’re in the corner that says a man cannot rape his wife too?

                    9. enigma – marriage legalized sexual intercourse so the extension of that was that a man or woman could not rape their spouse. Do I think they can and do, YES.

                    10. Paul, Enigma is trying to judge people outside of the time and place they lived. One cannot do that but that serves his purpose of making himself appear like a God because he is passing judgement based on his time and his place along with his mindset. That permits him to justify his hatefulness and his disdain for anyone that came before. This is a sickness.

                    11. “They do what they have to do to protect the integrity of a man who in some areas was quite challenged. ”

                      I don’t think Jefferson was challenged. I would say that he was conflicted. He lived at a time where certain ideas such as slavery were thought to be normal (not far off from the truth since slavery existed throughout mankind’s existence) but Jefferson’s mindset was on the Liberty of man. He helped to promote Liberty to all of mankind despite this conflict. One has to think of how life would be if we rid ourselves of all men that are not perfect but are in conflict. If we did that we would be putting all men into a dark age, a place where man could never climb out from.

                    12. They do what they have to do to protect the integrity of a man who in some areas was quite challenged…They cannot admit his failings as a man.

                      Clearly Jefferson owned slaves. And clearly Jefferson wrote the self-evident truths in the DoI. So clearly there is a conflict between the two positions. So how can someone write the latter and still own slaves? Does he actually believe in the self-evident truths? Does owning slaves invalidate the self-evident truths? Or does the self-evident truths invalidate the owning of slaves?

                      The fact is this hideous global institution was not going to go away because a very small percentage of the world’s population declared it to be against the rights of man. The fact is the DoI set this country on a path to abolish slavery. The fact is compromises were necessary in our constitution to become one nation and keep us on that path.

                      The last I checked, the Jefferson Society has not denied he owned slaves. That is not in dispute. You are free to not revere a man that was a slave-owner, but to not revere a man that was a major force to end that institution is illogical. It’s unchristian. It would be like not revering John Newton’s contribution in Amazing Grace because he was at one time part of the slave trade.

                    13. Olly – You belief that Jefferson was a major force to end the institution was misguided. He made breeding slaves for sale highly profitable by eliminating the competition, the International slave trade. He only freed two slaves while living, one of whom paid him $200. He freed five more upon hos death, keeping hundreds more in bondage. He was a rapist.
                      I can acknowledge he also did some good things. But I’m afraid reverance is out of the question.

                    14. Sorry it took me so long to reply, I’ve been searching all afternoon for a fuc* to give and it didn’t happen. I tell you what, you keep doing what you do to undermine Jefferson’s legacy and I’ll do what I can to support it. Ironically, if you’re successful, people may reconsider the legitimacy of natural rights and then be put back in chains. Metaphorical or not. You must be so proud arguing in defense of slavery.

                    15. Sensitive aren’t we? My response to you wasn’t even harsh. You admire who you will, I choose not to participate in your hero worship of a deeply flawed man. The slave breeding he helped institutionalize is particular to America. Why you need him to be a hero I don’t know.

                    16. Nope; well perhaps you with the issue of slavery and racism. Keep it alive and you believe you are relevant. You are a one trick pony.

                    17. I notice we aren’t debating the facts? I’m telling you something you don’t know. You apparently prefer blissful ignorance. We are a nation today that can’t come to grips with white nationalism, right wing militias and terrorist organizations who are killing more people each year than any foreigners. We have voter suppression using some of the same tactics as during and after Reconstruction. You want me to ignore the aftermath of slavery and not discuss racism. When they cease to exist, I’ll be happy to ignore them.

                    18. enigma – white nationalist are way down the list of your personal fears and you know it. In fact, white nationalism really isn’t on your radar. BTW, voter ID is not voter suppression, the SC has said so.

                    19. Been listening to Candace Owens have you? White nationalists would be far less of a concen to me except for the occupants in and around the Oval office. I don’t wake up each morning in fear of white nationalists but as long as I have kids and grandchildren they are going to be a concern, especially since they’re growing in numbers and prominence.

                      I’m going to use my best Turley imitation and say I’ve always maintained that I don’t care much about Voter ID personally as long as it is totally free and highly accessable. In every state where Republicans have passed an Voter ID law they have also introduced several other changes designed to suppress the vote. I have offered to demonstrate it and asked someone here to pick a Republican state and I would document the rules changes. I wanted them to pick the state to demonstrate how ubiquitous it is but they refused to do so. That offer still stands.

                    20. enigma – this is a slave he took with him to France. I would have to see the whole layout of the house before I got too suspicious. She was the nanny to his daughter and I don’t know how close that puts the bedrooms together.

                    21. She was also his wife’s half-sister. I come to the conclusion she’s the product of Jefferson’s wife’s father raping a slave but I could be missing a possibility.

                    22. Technically Paul, you’re a Jefferson apologist who will accept sex with a 14 – and now 12 – year old slave as consensual

                    23. Anon1 – if the age of consent is 12 and they consent then yes, it is acceptable. However, I think the culprit is Randolph Jefferson, not Thomas.

                    24. PS God forbid any of Paul’s relatives are ever captured by hostile forces, but if so, he is prepared to accept whatever is done to them as legal.

                    25. “Sure Allen, like Albert Speer said at Nuremberg: “You had to be there.””

                      Again Anon is trying to be slick but in a different way than last time I used this word. Based on the time and place (the developed and civilized western world) his actions were barbaric and murderous.

                      Anon is trying to liken Albert Speer to Thomas Jefferson. That is the type of nut Anon is.

        1. Here is an interesting thing that i did not previously know about Lee, until i looked something up recently and stumbled upon it. Evidently, Robert E Lee favored and advocated a policy of manumission upon enlistment, and other measures to ameliorate the negative effects of slavery on the Confederacy, but the greedy planters abhorred the notion and Jeff Davis blocked it.

          He also wanted to “impress” ie nationalize a certain number of slaves to work on fortifications. The greedy planters opposed that as well, of course.

          Not sure it would have changed the result of the war, but, as a class, the planters were willing to send more white Southerners to die in order to test it.


          Enlistment and Emancipation

          Title: Emancipation

          The Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863, committed the United States to recruiting African Americans for its armies. The Confederacy, however, refused to recognize any fugitive slaves as soldiers, especially for the purposes of prisoner-of-war exchange, a policy which Lee enforced. According to William Allan, though, Lee claimed to have urged the Confederate president Jefferson Davis “often and early in the war […] that the slaves should be emancipated, that it was the only way to remove a weakness at home and to get sympathy abroad, and to divide our enemies, but Davis would not hear of it.” Lee’s son, William Henry Fitzhugh Lee, also insisted that his father “was always for gradual emancipation.” And Lee told William Preston Johnston in 1868 that “he knew the strength of the United States Government; and saw the necessity at first of […] a proclamation of gradual emancipation and the use of negroes as soldiers.”

          mpressment of Slaves and
          Free Blacks

          It was not, however, until September 2, 1864, that Lee addressed himself officially on the subject to Davis, and then only with the intent of “relieving all able bodied white men employed as teamsters, cooks, mechanics and laborers, and supplying their places with negroes.” Lee continued to recommend the impressment of slave workers “to labor on the fortifications” of Richmond. But in October, Lee took the further step of writing to William Porcher Miles, the chair of the Confederate House of Representatives’ military affairs committee, to urge a program of African American enlistment, accompanied by emancipation.

          Rumor of Lee’s endorsement of slave enlistment was met with incredulity by Confederate hardliners. Howell Cobb, a general and politician from Georgia, denounced the notion of enlisting and emancipating slaves as “the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began.” Cobb found it “a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R.E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy.” Still, on January 7, 1865, the Virginia state senator Andrew Hunter wrote directly to Lee to ask his views on “the expediency and propriety of bringing to bear against our relentless enemy […] the element of military strength supposed to be found in our negro population.”

          Lee replied swiftly, writing that “the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity” was “the best that can exist between the white and black races.” But the Union armies will “in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population” and recruit them into the Union forces. It was time for Southerners to decide whether “slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institution.” That would, however, require “giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully.” Nor could it stop merely with those who served in the Confederate forces. Once begun, military emancipation would have to be accompanied by “a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.”

          Blacks Permitted into the
          Confederate Army

          Within days, Lee’s letter “on the subject of negro enlistment” was being copied, circulated, and discussed. Robert Garlick Hill Kean, a Lynchburg native working in the Confederate war department, confessed to his diary on January 24, 1865, that he was “astonished” that Lee “favors emancipation per se,” as well as advocating “large enlistments accompanied by the promise of prospective emancipation of the families of the negro soldier.” But on February 11, 1865, the Confederate secretary of state Judah P. Benjamin sought from Lee and his army “an expression of its desire to be reinforced by such negroes as for the boon of freedom will volunteer to go to the front.” One week later, Lee wrote to the Mississippi congressman Ethelbert Barksdale, who had introduced legislation to recruit slave soldiers without requiring their emancipation, to urge “the employment of negroes as soldiers” as “not only expedient, but necessary.” He insisted, however, that “placing them on the footing of soldiers” should also come “with their freedom secured.” Finally, Lee asked Jefferson Davis for direct authorization to “carry” black enlistment “into effect as soon as practicable,” and on March 27 he anxiously requested confirmation from the Confederate secretary of war John C. Breckinridge “for raising and organizing the colored troops.” But it was too little, too late. Lee evacuated Richmond on April 2 and surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia a week later at Appomattox Court House.

          1. Interesting read. Lee was being pragmatic and looking for a way to secure better footing in the war. On the other side, Lincoln was more pragmatist than emancipator. He wanted to hurt the South’s economy and keep France and Britain from aiding the South. The Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on slaves outside the states that seceded from the Union.
            I’d be curious to know about Lee’s views on slavery in general. Enough so that I’ll probably do some research.

          2. Sorry I don’t remember specifics, but I am slowly reading Ron Chernow’s biography of U.S. Grant – he became a staunch abolitionist during the war – and Lee does not come of very well. I think it is safe to lay whatever measures he suggested as purely pragmatic, and not part of an enlightened attitude.

    1. News alert: the founding fathers had slaves and enshrined slavery in the Constitution. And, they were humans, not gods! Some knew better. Thanks for the update.

      I would add my own news alert: humans enslaving(and conquering) other humans was kind of a thing in the past. No one has clean hands, not even the natives, nobody.

      I sometimes wonder why these bad men would needlessly risk their own lives by starting a revolution when they were already very wealthy. It really makes no sense. What foolish bad men! Better(and safer) to stick with the King and get even richer doing his bidding.

      I also wonder at how ignorant the people of today are with the internet at our command whereas our founding fathers had so little but knew so much. And how can there be wisdom when there is no knowledge?

    2. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln realized the futility of compassionately repatriating the freed slaves to Africa as the African Tribal Chiefs would have simply revived the cycle by selling their subjects to the Arab slave traders who would have, in turn, marketed them to the British shippers who would have, in turn, sold them to the British planters and so on and so on and so on. “Crazy Abe” would have been compelled to somehow constrain the African Tribal Chiefs, a dubious prospect at best – “Crazy Abe” himself might have been sold into the African/International slave trade while on an official state visit – as that song, “Stranded in the Jungle” by the Jayhawks, 1956, goes, “I smelled something cookin’ and I looked to see, That’s when; I found out they was a cookin’ me!”

      Alas, the only thing people can do is complain and make excuses for their deficiencies, unattractiveness and failures. When no one loves you, especially your tribal chiefs, all you can do is caterwaul. Although “Affirmative Action Privilege,” “Generational Welfare,” etc., etc., etc., do take the edge off.

      People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.

      Freedom does not adapt to people…dictatorship does.

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

      – Abraham Lincoln

  7. If releasing financial info is that important, then make it a law that everybody who runs for public office has to do it under penalty of perjury.

    1. Sure, Bob, but since Reagan presidential candidates did so voluntarily until our scumbag in chief, and he promised he would.

  8. Darren, I wonder if you can help. I don’t seem to be receiving emails from my standard login into my email folder. If you are able to help I thank you in advance.

    1. Although removed from the applicable posts, this page represents yet another win for enigma and justice over the antideluvian arguments of the day glo bozo supporters. How’s that white sheet set fitting now?

      this is to “who knew black people could run MY city” troglodytes

      1. “How’s that white sheet set fitting now?”

        Great, Mark great. It goes over the corners of the matress but won’t be as good for you to use for your white robes but you will find the pillow case adequate for your pointed headdress.

        Are those robed people the only friends you have?

  9. The three legs of our federal government, the democrats, the republicans and Trump.

Comments are closed.